درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Redevelopment of distressed and blighted areas are targeted by most of development policies. However, a number of policies have been changed as the result of the ineffectiveness of the previous experiences, the incompatibility of the development tools and plans, the lack of financial resources or social movements. Large-scale redevelopment projects have usually been considered as the powerful tools for urban revitalization, modernization and implementation of radical plans while many of those were criticized due to their various consequences including social exclusion, inequality, social conflicts, environmental damages, inconsistent scale, etc. Downtown of the City of Mashhad; Samen District, has experienced various physical interventions in the form of large-scale projects during the last century. Although the projects and intervention policies have been transformed during the past decades, previous faults were ignored and sometimes were iterated in these experiences. In fact, it seems that urban development solutions in the district have not been sustainable solutions and couldn’t maintain or shape a sustainable community in the historical and formerly economic urban core of Mashhad. This paper, focusing on mega redevelopment projects experienced in Samen Districst after 1920s, aims to highlight the critical aspects neglected or bent in Samen redevelopment program. Based on the nature of large-scale redevelopment projects and the current sustainability criteria, it qualitatively assesses the sustainability of the redevelopment projects through content-analysis method. According to the results, despite the competitiveness and place promotion goals of the Samen redevelopment project, the adopted approaches and policies could not lead to a state of sustainable development.

Since nature of architecture is quite different from that of other fields of study, the criteria used for judging projects in this field continuously undergo some changes. On the other hand, because of the undeniable role of human factors in judging the projects, there is always a percentage of deviation from the standard given the interests of the judging committee. The standards of judging architecture projects can be divided into these general classes: idea, process and technical issues. The standards of judging architecture projects can be classified as such: Selection, placement, relations of function, form, volume, internal arrangement and circulation; Considering the studies, analyzing and planning the body of the project; Considering the substrate of the project and recognizing the facilities and their limits; Engineering of the project: considering the relationship between technical knowledge and designing; Using imagination, innovation and creativity when it comes to the idea of the project and the quality of developing this idea; Providence: flexibility and variability of the design in the future; Being aware of the factors affecting the formation of the design (moral, tribal, and cultural); Being practically logical and realistic, paying attention to the applicableness of the design and its compliance with the topic; Taking into account the technical principles, structural systems and machineries; Graphic (visual) and oral (introduction and defense) presentation method. Reviewing previous studies that have focused on different methods for judging student projects shows that we can divide these methods into the following classes: Evaluation by the professors (throughout the project); Group display of the works; Evaluation by the classmates; Personal evaluation; Traditional methods of judgment; Written judgment of the professors; Evaluation by the professor (regarding the completed project).